·Both use natural language as a
source of knowledge to reveal the objects and relationships of interest.

·Both use formal logic as a key
analytical tool.”

As far as I am aware

1.While philosophical ontologists tend
to recognise natural language as a useful resource, they spend quite a lot of
time showing how unreliable a guide it is. Some going as far as to say natural
language has been a source of serious error.

2.Philosophical ontologists now regard
logic and ontology as different disciplines – where ontology deals with
being and logic with inference. I have asked quite a few philosophers for some
explanation of the link between the two – but it does not seem to be
something they investigate. As an historical aside, at the beginning of the 20th
century, there was a much closer connection. BTW I accept that some philosophical
ontologists see logic as a useful analytic tool

So it seems to me these are not as clear cut or strong similarities as
you suggest.

I also note that the original framework document seems to be relatively
neutral about the role of natural language and logic (rightly in my view).